The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mary L. Cooper United States District Judge

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

THE PLAINTIFF moving for summary judgment in its favor, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 56 (dkt. entry no. 27); and the Defendants opposing the motion (dkt. entry no. 29); and the Magistrate Judge previously ordering that the "parties will have until 5/4/11, to conclude all fact discovery in this matter" (dkt. entry no. 25, 1-4-11 Pretrial Scheduling Order ("PSO")); and it appearing the Defendants have served Initial Interrogatories (dkt. entry no. 29, Def. Br. at 5, 7); and it further appearing that the Plaintiff has yet to respond (id.; dkt. entry no. 27, Pl. Br. at 2); and

THE COURT observing that it "is obliged to give a party opposing
summary judgment an adequate opportunity to obtain discovery," Doe v.
Abington Friends Sch., 480 F.3d 252, 257 (3d Cir. 2007); and Rule
56(d) allowing a court to deny a motion for
summary judgment where the party opposing the motion shows by
affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot
present facts essential to justify its opposition, Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(d);*fn1 and the Court observing that a motion
pursuant to this Rule must identify the particular information sought,
how the information would preclude summary judgment, and why the
information has not been previously obtained, St. Surin v. V.I. Daily
News, Inc., 21 F.3d 1309, 1314 (3d Cir. 1994); Bobian v. CSA Czech
Airlines, 232 F.Supp.2d 319, 323 (D.N.J. 2002), aff'd,
93 Fed.Appx. 406 (3d Cir. 2004); and THE DEFENDANTS failing to
expressly cite Rule 56(d); but the
Defendants specifying that "[d]ocuments which [the P]laintiff has
failed to produce include the original note, a complete accounting of
all rents received, an authenticated assignment or any underlying
documentation reflecting the securitization of the loan" (dkt. entry
no. 29-2, Cert. Of Steve Kogut at 1-2); and the Defendants averring
that this discovery bears upon "[the
P]laintiff's standing to institute this foreclosure action" (id. at
4); and
THE COURT distinguishing this case from those where the non-movant
seeks additional discovery or extension of discovery
deadlines, see N'Jie v. Mei Cheung, No. 09-919, 2011 WL 809990, at *7
(D.N.J. Mar. 1, 2011) (denying request to delay summary judgment
decision where plaintiffs had adequate time to complete discovery and
failed to comply with discovery demands on multiple occasions); and
the Court further distinguishing it from those where the non-movant
has failed to pursue discovery at all, see Barber v. Ellis, No. 08-49,
2010 WL 2546068, at *4 (D.N.J. June 21, 2010) ("if there is still
discovery outstanding which Plaintiff believes is necessary for him to
adequately oppose Defendant's motion for summary judgment, it is only
still outstanding because of Plaintiff's failure to seek said
discovery within the allotted discovery period"); and

THE PSO having been entered on January 4, 2011 (1-4-11 Pretrial Scheduling Order); and it appearing that the Defendants duly served discovery demands on the Plaintiff on January 18, 2011 (Def. Br. at 3); and the deadline for completing discovery being on May 4, 2011 (1-4-11 Pretrial Scheduling Order); and

and the Court being mindful that the Magistrate Judge previously ordered this time period for discovery; and the Court noting that the Plaintiff is not harmed by this short delay, because it is collecting rents through a Receiver as per the Court's previous Order (dkt. entry no. 11, 10-28-10 Order); and the Court thus intending to deny the motion without prejudice pursuant to Rule 56(d); and

THE COURT deciding the motion without oral argument, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); and for good cause appearing:

IT IS THEREFORE on this 5th day of April, 2011, ORDERED that the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (dkt. entry no. 27) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, with leave to move again, upon a new notice of motion and in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rules, upon the completion of discovery.

Mary L. ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.